Landing patterns

My two bits...

I fly in the SF bay area (San Carlos - class D).
Pattern altitude is 800 AGL.
The normal headwind component is 8-14 kts.
Traffic in the pattern is fairly heavy... number 3 in sequence when
you enter on the 45 is usual.

The lowish TPA & reasonably high headwinds needs fairly shortened base
& final legs to make it in poweroff from the downwind.
Doing this with traffic ahead can get you uncomfortably close...he may
not clear the runway in time...need tower clearance.

And not least , the turn radius of a 172 is subsantially larger than a
glider. At idle from downwind , from the above TPA & with headwinds ,
base & final are nearly a continuous turn.
I have flown gliders before , and fly a 152 now ... purely from a
control feedback & response perspective , I'm much happier doing the
above U turn from downwind to final in a glider than in a 152.

I suppose what I am saying is - traffic constraints , airspace &
pattern requirements , aircraft maneuverability - imply that a
somewhat poweron approach works best for the usual circumstances which
exist at GA airports.

Having said that , I'm personally much happier flying a close in
pattern , somewhat high & shortened final , and a forward slip if
needed.


Pavan Bhatnagar
(aspiring PP-ASEL)

m pautz wrote in message news:7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03...
There seems to be a discrepancy between glider landing patterns and
power landing patterns. There is a discussion on the soaring news group
about our 30-45 degree turns vs the power shallow banked turns. The
reason for our bank angle is because we fly close-in/tight patterns.

I can’t provide input to the power side since my power training is 30
years old and was quite different from today’s power landing patterns.
The first “glider” I ever flew was a Cessna 150 (that’s right, a Cessna
150). My instructor was teaching me to fly a close-in pattern. With
each successive landing, I was stretching out the pattern. The
instructor warned me about stretching out the pattern and told me that
one of the reasons for the pattern is so that I could ‘always’ land at
the airport even with engine failure. He put the plane at the *correct*
IP, turned the engine off (dead stick), and said, “ok, it’s yours”

I landed with no problems. More importantly, I now had the confidence
and skills to land a plane with engine failure. Since then, I see the
power planes landing with stretched out patterns and low-angle final
approaches. The approach angle is so low, that they could not possibly
make it with engine failure. I also hear them compensate on final by
*adding* power.

So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
have these wide patterns with low angled turns? Why are the patterns
outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane? I had a friend who
died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance
of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They
crashed short of the runway on final.

Hopefully, some CFIs will respond. I am curious about this issue.

Marty Pautz
"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"